Case: Waldorf v. Arkansas

Background 

When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022, Arkansas’s Attorney General immediately certified the state’s pre-existing “trigger ban,” resulting in a near-total prohibition on abortion at all stages of pregnancy. Arkansas’s two abortion bans—one passed in 2021 and held in abeyance until Roe fell, and one trigger ban—are substantively identical. Both ban abortion except to “save the life of a pregnant woman in a medical emergency.” Violations of the laws carry penalties of up to $100,000 and ten years in prison, as well as professional discipline and loss of medical licensure.

Summary

Seeking to block Arkansas’s near-total abortion ban, four women who were denied emergency or necessary abortion care and one OB/GYN physician filed this lawsuit on January 28, 2026, in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas. Plaintiffs Emily Waldorf, Theresa Van, Chelsea Stovall, Allison Howland, and Dr. Chad B. Taylor, M.D., sued the State of Arkansas, the Arkansas Governor, Attorney General, three county prosecuting attorneys, and the members and officers of the Arkansas State Medical Board in their official capacities, alleging that Arkansas’s two overlapping total abortion bans—Ark. Code Ann. §§ 5-61-304 and 5-61-404—violated the Arkansas Constitution. Represented by Amplify Legal, Morrison & Foerster LLP, and Punchwork Law, plaintiffs alleged that the bans were unconstitutionally vague, deprived pregnant Arkansans of their fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness under Article 2, Section 2 of the Arkansas Constitution, and violated the equal protection guarantees of Article 2, Sections 2, 3, and 18. Plaintiffs sought declaratory judgment that the bans were invalid and a permanent injunction blocking their enforcement. The case was assigned to Judge Cara Connors of the 12th Division, 6th Circuit.

The complaint documented that over 50% of Arkansas counties are maternity care deserts, the state ranks first nationally in maternal mortality, and approximately 1,300 Arkansans travel out of state for abortion care per year under extreme financial and logistical hardship.

In July 2025, the Arkansas legislature amended the definition of “medical emergency” in both abortion bans to add a “reasonable medical judgment” standard similar to bans in Texas and Tennessee. The complaint alleged this amendment did not meaningfully clarify the scope of permissible care, because physicians remained exposed to jury or regulatory board decisions on whether their judgment was “reasonable.”

The complaint asserted three counts under the Arkansas Constitution. Count I alleged that the abortion bans were unconstitutionally vague in violation of Article 2, Section 8 (due process), because the “medical emergency” exception provided no fair notice to physicians of what conditions qualified, exposed them to arbitrary enforcement, and used terminology with no accepted clinical meaning. Count II alleged the bans violated the “inherent and inalienable rights” to “enjoying and defending life and liberty” and “pursuing their own happiness” protected by Article 2, Section 2, arguing the bans had no rational relationship to any legitimate state interest and failed any level of heightened scrutiny. Count III alleged the bans violated the equality guarantees of Article 2, Sections 2, 3, and 18, by stripping pregnant Arkansans of rights that other Arkansans retained.

Defendants moved to dismiss on March 6, 2026, arguing that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ facial constitutional challenges, that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring claims on behalf of third parties, that plaintiffs failed to state a claim, and that defendants were entitled to sovereign immunity. On April 9, 2026, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding two new individual plaintiffs who had been denied abortions in Arkansas after the original complaint was filed. The amended complaint also added a request for preliminary injunctive relief during the pendency of the litigation. On the same date, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction and requested a hearing on both the preliminary injunction motion and the pending motion to dismiss.

As of April 22, 2026, the motions to dismiss and for preliminary injunction are pending before Judge Connors, and no hearing has been scheduled.